From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [217.216.95.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE62B3E8695 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2026 19:49:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776368975; cv=none; b=QVq8v40WLFglEXs/0TqrICdhoHiuk7LsiKxz+F3Rmd0Yl4n/JfSzN61elzu5+j/68OeNMPX6NhQfkxFH0Mj0fox9/D/9fV63tcxE529AMVvj2w5HWekDR8O2HfwOOGaf7vN8fSW6IZTt7glnYA5ge+dEuq3VPWCvdrQlzPpNIeQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776368975; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Re6oFsJaV6tLN1TZ+vDUguP+1it5p2BaegqlPzClngA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Pn3UWelHgMU5c5Cf95syi0LAJD8amQF2JDTs5gopST1Ol48WbmDXExVBeMB8/2dgjix1qESzJslOL2lqwv8TpMGKZKQEIO2uX7DJsxvtUqKIP3Fs2lLdFlCuobcckiu6cK/7rQqh2sQhg8H5rP8Cp4qbKPdBHkF3mc7qeLrXTIM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=htjgUs9a; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="htjgUs9a" Received: (qmail 373746 invoked by uid 106); 16 Apr 2026 19:49:23 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=Re6oFsJaV6tLN1TZ+vDUguP+1it5p2BaegqlPzClngA=; b=htjgUs9a4Hlz+InsnziCujGQT0/POl8HpxSKfObgBBVZCTU4z6eXWBvx90FGU4nsJXlLPyaG6U6/kNgdagyfQtPvZ1IrmOBLJ648IATjY4kEvQqOEKThGmpigAWcnunoUAj+8mrmxTAOyKXpvRD0WqdEtCotUMX06/fgZhznfY+Il9lf9XELEwmstGKajv/oug2D9PZy/DuPC9K1Isb1w3KawVRyhWYVyPtxgWXRGxTK7fqYx0MuWzhIc+QBkTSZYEqdWk9sbH211sbh8QDE9S2+IjP4UwHO6e90QvSwuLZ6yDU1I0nSSZUSZzypdcsvdG7wNA2KYTZfbjqHh1TX/A== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Apr 2026 19:49:23 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 622114 invoked by uid 111); 16 Apr 2026 19:49:22 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 16 Apr 2026 15:49:22 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 15:49:22 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: MIDX woes, was Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.54.0-rc2 Message-ID: <20260416194922.GA1887222@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <8c1def10-9039-aecd-4ce4-fb4676b47e9b@gmx.de> <20260416051732.GA48541@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260416053435.GA646718@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 11:18:35AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > As to the other change, rebased to our current codebase, we could > sell it as "futureproofing" for similar breakages we make next, but > that means we are promising ourselves that we will forever keep the > MIDX purely optional feature. I do not think we want to decide that > we are comfortable with that position during -rc period, so I am not > sure. These error() messages should be reworded to make it clear > that we are _ignoring_ the corrupt multi-pack-prefix file(s) as a > result, and then further weakened into warning(), I think, if we > were to go in that direction. Yeah, I agree that re-wording would be a good idea here. I think this can happen post-release. We'd like for this to have happened long ago, but it didn't. Doing it in 2.54 versus 2.55 does not really matter, as: 1. We still have to worry about 2.53 and earlier anyway, so one version is not much in the grand scheme of things. 2. For midx v2, 2.54 knows how to read it anyway, so is not affected by the problem. ;) -Peff